• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should All Police Have to Wear Body Cameras?

Should All Police Have to Wear Body Cameras?

  • Yes

    Votes: 61 83.6%

  • No

    Votes: 8 11.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 5.5%
  • Total voters
    73
ttwtt78640 said:
Only if all suspects must wear them as well. Why should the word of the arrested count without video back-up but not the word of the arresting officer?
Click to expand...

It would be impossible to get everyone to wear a camera, but cops can be required to do so as part of their well-paid job. Cameras on police cars and on officers are proven to reduce complaints against the police because both the police and the public behave better when they know they are being recorded. Video recordings allow for quicker dismissal of bogus claims of police misconduct and also aid in obtaining convictions.
 
ecofarm said:
I agree with that. But they are no more "authorized to kill Americans" than any other citizen.
Click to expand...

The police have a union, co-workers, management and government attorneys on their side and a system rigged to help them get away with it.
 
Hard Truth said:
The police have a union, co-workers, management and government attorneys on their side and a system rigged to help them get away with it.
Click to expand...

"The police" are not "the psycho/sociopaths". Police officers no more try to "get away with it" than any other group.
 
tres borrachos said:
Um, actually cops force citizens to comply with the laws, not "their orders".
Click to expand...

Most states have laws such as these two, and they are not always limited to traffic/driving.
"2921.331 Failure to comply with order or signal of police officer.

(A) No person shall fail to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer invested with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.

(B) No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police officer to bring the person's motor vehicle to a stop.

(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer.

(2) A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree."
Lawriter - ORC - 2921.331 Failure to comply with order or signal of police officer.

Maryland "Criminal Law
Article § 10-201). This statute states, in part, that, “A person may not willfully fail to obey a
reasonable and lawful order that a law enforcement officer makes
to prevent a disturbance to the public peace
.” (Emphasis added). The statute further prohibits a person from making
“unreasonably loud noise” to “willfully disturb the peace of another . . . .”
http://www.lgit.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/417
 
tres borrachos said:
I think it should be up to the jurisdiction they work for, not a national law. I'm all for it if the citizens want it. And whatever appears on video should be allowed into evidence in trials.
Click to expand...

All police Dept, Local, State and National should have to regardless if they want to.
 
DVSentinel said:
So, who your employer is should make a difference? What if your employer mistrusts you because someone you don't know, never met and probably don't agree with caused a major public relations incident?
Click to expand...

If my employer wanted to do that, that is his decision. If I don't like it I can stop working for him. All public employees action in their line of duty are in the public domain. There for if the the public wants them the be recoreded, their is nothing they can do about it. If the cops doesn't like he can stop being a cop.
 
DVSentinel said:
Same adage can be applied to NSA Surveillance and the Patriot Act. Should we also apply it to the military? National Guard? Government employees who handle sensitive documents? Once you begin, where does it end? You support this, but someday those politically opposed to you will be in power again. You set the precedence, how can you then claim they are wrong?

It can be applied to any group that wishes to spy upon another group.

Funny isn't how so many that complain about privacy are hopping on the band wagon to take away someone else's privacy and to foster mistrust. If a cop cannot be trusted to do his job correctly and honestly, then just like any employee of any company, he should be dismissed, not spied upon.
Click to expand...

People do not have the same expectation, or right to privacy when working. Many workers are directly supervised by their boss and/or under video surveillance.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Look more bull****! Remember when you cant say anything of relevance just say "socialism bad! Socialism kill!" Like a ****ing broken record.
Click to expand...

So the truth is BS? You want to monitor police because of corruption and the possibility them killing someone innocent.

By that measure, then socialist history proves the first we should monitor for such things would be socialist.

In other words, when it comes to corruption and death, socialist are the last people who should be pointing fingers at others.
 
ecofarm said:
"The police" are not "the psycho/sociopaths". Police officers no more try to "get away with it" than any other group.
Click to expand...

Some cops are psycho/sociopaths. Cops may not try to get away with misdeeds more than anyone else, but their misdeeds are more harmful to the public. In addition, the whole justice system favors the word of the police over an ordinary citizen. The police have a union, co-workers, management and government attorneys on their side and a special system of internal investigation and discipline rigged to help them get away with bad behavior.
 
DVSentinel said:
So the truth is BS? You want to monitor police because of corruption and the possibility them killing someone innocent.

By that measure, then socialist history proves the first we should monitor for such things would be socialist.

In other words, when it comes to corruption and death, socialist are the last people who should be pointing fingers at others.
Click to expand...

Public employees have no right to privacy when it comes to their job.
 
Hard Truth said:
Some cops are psycho/sociopaths. Cops may not try to get away with misdeeds more than anyone else, but their misdeeds are more harmful to the public. In addition, the whole justice system favors the word of the police over an ordinary citizen. The police have a union, co-workers, management and government attorneys on their side and a special system of internal investigation and discipline rigged to help them get away with bad behavior.
Click to expand...

Those things are in place to protect the average cop, a good guy. That those things are abused by the rare crazy person is irrelevant.
 
ecofarm said:
Those things are in place to protect the average cop, a good guy. That those things are abused by the rare crazy person is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Says you.
 
ecofarm said:
Those things are in place to protect the average cop, a good guy. That those things are abused by the rare crazy person is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It is not a fair system, cops tend to protect fellow officers who literally 'have their back" and the (usually) secret discipline hearings are not fair to members of the public victimized by bad cops. Few cops actually murder people, but petty theft (especially of drugs), perjury, unlawful orders, illegal searches, verbal abuse and rudeness, planting evidence, withholding evidence, unnecessary shoving, hitting and grabbing, racial profiling and many other types of misconduct are not rare.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is not a fair system, cops tend to protect fellow officers who literally 'have their back." Few cops actually murder people, but petty theft (esp of drugs), perjury, unlawful orders, illegal searches, verbal abuse and rudeness, planting evidence, withholding evidence, unnecessary shoving, hitting and grabbing, racial profiling and many other types of misconduct are not rare.
Click to expand...

No blood no foul. Move along, citizen.
 
"A man locked up for 18 years after being wrongfully convicted in a double-murder case is poised to get $3.5 million from San Francisco.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera has recommended the city settle the lawsuit by Caramad Conley for that amount, documents newly introduced at the Board of Supervisors show. The settlement still must be approved by the board, which is to take up the matter this month, but supervisors routinely approve such settlements. Police Chief Greg Suhr and the city's Police Commission have already signed off on it, the documents show.

Conley, 40, was locked up in 1992. In 1994, he was convicted and sentenced to serve two life-without-parole terms for the 1989 drive-by shooting deaths of Roshawn Johnson and Charles Hughes that left 11 others injured. Prosecutors said the shooting was gang-motivated. A judge ruled in December 2010 that he had been wrongly convicted. He was released a month later.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller found that police investigators knew that the prosecution's star witness, Clifford Polk, lied on the stand about whether he was being paid, but they did nothing to intervene. Miller concluded that the lead investigator in the case, Earl Sanders - who later became police chief - knew about the perjury "and did not correct it."

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Wrongfully-convicted-S-F-man-poised-to-get-3-5-5619070.php

A city can buy a lot of video cameras for officers for 3.5 million.
 
Hard Truth said:
"A man locked up for 18 years after being wrongfully convicted in a double-murder case is poised to get $3.5 million from San Francisco.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera has recommended the city settle the lawsuit by Caramad Conley for that amount, documents newly introduced at the Board of Supervisors show. The settlement still must be approved by the board, which is to take up the matter this month, but supervisors routinely approve such settlements. Police Chief Greg Suhr and the city's Police Commission have already signed off on it, the documents show.

Conley, 40, was locked up in 1992. In 1994, he was convicted and sentenced to serve two life-without-parole terms for the 1989 drive-by shooting deaths of Roshawn Johnson and Charles Hughes that left 11 others injured. Prosecutors said the shooting was gang-motivated. A judge ruled in December 2010 that he had been wrongly convicted. He was released a month later.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller found that police investigators knew that the prosecution's star witness, Clifford Polk, lied on the stand about whether he was being paid, but they did nothing to intervene. Miller concluded that the lead investigator in the case, Earl Sanders - who later became police chief - knew about the perjury "and did not correct it."

Wrongfully convicted S.F. man poised to get $3.5 million - SFGate

A city can buy a lot of video cameras for officers for 3.5 million.
Click to expand...

How exactly would video cameras prevent a witness from lying on the stand about being paid for his testimony?
 
tres borrachos said:
How exactly would video cameras prevent a witness from lying on the stand about being paid for his testimony?
Click to expand...

It probably wouldnt but it still highlights wrong doing by people in positions of trust. Perhaps the field officers making the arrest could have shed light on the situation though with recorded evidence.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
It probably wouldnt but it still highlights wrong doing by people in positions of trust. Perhaps the field officers making the arrest could have shed light on the situation though with recorded evidence.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't, is the correct answer.

Do you think the only people in "positions of trust" who ever do anything wrong as policemen?

And no, in the example he posted, nothing in the field captured via a camera would have prevented the man from being charged in the first place. His conviction was thrown out on a technicality, rightfully so, but a technicality nonetheless.
 
Hard Truth said:
Some cops are psycho/sociopaths. Cops may not try to get away with misdeeds more than anyone else, but their misdeeds are more harmful to the public. In addition, the whole justice system favors the word of the police over an ordinary citizen. The police have a union, co-workers, management and government attorneys on their side and a special system of internal investigation and discipline rigged to help them get away with bad behavior.
Click to expand...

Just had one here...a SWAT guy...convicted of pimping out his wife and stealing police dept. ammo. (alot).
 
Here's an interesting story about my Father and the police in Shelton CT.

He was a victim of police brutality multiple times, some times he was even arrested and taken in because he was "part of the Latin Kings" (a baseless claim made simply because he was brown)

Shelton in the past was one of the absolute worst cities, the KKK grand wizard lived there and the police corruption was terrible.

There were so many complaints about the police department in Shelton that the federal department of Justice came in and conducted an investigation after a lawsuit was filed. Afterwards they found enough evidence of the corruption of the Shelton PD that they created a committee of citizens who would review the case (my dad was on that committee). They came together, and afterwards came to the conclusion that whenever a cop came and stopped someone they would have to turn on the camera otherwise it would be a violation that would get the entire PD in huge trouble.

That's how its done ladies and gentlemen, if the PD in your city is a piece of ****, assemble, file complaints, and sue, the federal govt. will investigate and give the people the power they deserve to make sure the police stay in check.

P.S. Shelton CT is known for having extremely low taxes so having all policemen wear cameras isn't expensive AT ALL (shame on all the people who spoke out of their asses that this would cost a lot of money :hammer:)
 
tres borrachos said:
It wouldn't, is the correct answer.

Do you think the only people in "positions of trust" who ever do anything wrong as policemen?

And no, in the example he posted, nothing in the field captured via a camera would have prevented the man from being charged in the first place. His conviction was thrown out on a technicality, rightfully so, but a technicality nonetheless.
Click to expand...

The point of my post is that police misconduct is not that rare and the stakes are high, which is why we need systems to keep them as accountable as possible.
 
DVSentinel said:
So the truth is BS? You want to monitor police because of corruption and the possibility them killing someone innocent.

By that measure, then socialist history proves the first we should monitor for such things would be socialist.

In other words, when it comes to corruption and death, socialist are the last people who should be pointing fingers at others.
Click to expand...

Still held up on my lean eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom